Validity and Reliability Studies of the Üsküdar Jealousy Scale and the Effect of Social Media on Jealousy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did a great job delving into an interesting and important subject in our current times,  focusing on the growing need to understand and assess jealousy. 

The introduction is well written, and the methodology is clear. The research was conducted using a quantitative method, with a focus on statistical analyses during the scale development stages. Since data collection was carried out through measurement tools assessing the current state, the general survey model was employed. The study sample consisted of 1053 participants, with 82.5% identifying as female and 17.5% as male. Participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 73, with an average age of 29.

Conclusions shed light on the necessity of jealousy as a motivating force for peaceful competition, emphasizing the importance of managing and channeling it constructively. It encourages individuals to self-reflect on their jealousy by setting personal goals and striving to surpass them, rather than competing destructively with others. With the integration of social media into daily life, relationships on these platforms have become as significant as face-to-face communication. 

I find the findings significant as they reveal that individuals who remain constantly connected to social media, place significant importance on follower counts to the extent of purchasing followers, have engaged with digital dating/friendship platforms at some point in their lives, or have experienced social media driven conflicts leading to the termination of relationships, exhibit higher levels of jealousy. Furthermore, both the developed scale and the initial findings of the study possess the potential to guide future research endeavors.

This study is very relevant to the age of social media and I really enjoyed reading this paper - thank you!

Author Response

Thank you for your positive contributions! 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a very ambitious study on jealousy and the ways in which it could not only be measured but also channeled as a positive force within the parameters of modernity and the prevalence of social media. The problem is that, at least to me, it seems like there are at least three different foci in this paper (excluding references): the first 5 pages or so which delve into de general dimensions of jealousy, including a detailed comparison with envy; the next 7-8 pages which describe the quantitative research itself (which seems at times overwhelmingly data-centered), and the last 2-3 pages which comment on the "benefits" while compellingly stating that jealousy is "one of the characteristics of narcissistic personality traits" - not only is this factually incorrect, but it hardly has to do with the previous data, as far as I can analyze it.

I pointed out in the attached file some erroneous passages which necessitate more in-depth consideration.

Altogether, a very necessary research which needs, precisely because it is so necessary, exact explanations and interpretations.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Methodological Improvements

Expand sample diversity: Include a more balanced sample in terms of gender, socioeconomic level, and geographic regions. Currently, 82.5% of the participants are women, which may limit the external validity of the instrument.

Apply factorial invariance analysis: Verify whether the factor structure remains consistent across subgroups (e.g., gender, age, marital status), which is crucial for comparative use.

Use probabilistic sampling: The study relied on a convenience sample collected online, which introduces selection bias. Random or stratified sampling is recommended.

Incorporate longitudinal follow-up: To evaluate temporal stability (test-retest reliability) and potential changes in jealousy levels over time or in response to interventions.

Use mixed methods: Complement quantitative data with qualitative interviews to deepen the understanding of the subjective experience of jealousy.

 

Psychometric Improvements

Include reverse-scored items: To reduce acquiescence bias and increase control over automatic responses.

Evaluate concurrent and predictive validity: Go beyond criterion validity (correlation with another scale) to assess whether the UJS predicts behaviors associated with jealousy (e.g., real-life conflicts in romantic relationships).

Explore external validity: Validate the scale in other cultural contexts and languages through cross-cultural analysis.

Control for social desirability bias: Consider including control scales to measure whether participants respond in socially desirable ways, especially on items involving hostility or manipulation.

 

Presentation Improvements

Include tables with central tendency by group: While general means are reported, detailed differences by age, gender, or marital status are not presented.

Visualize results: Comparative graphs or heatmaps between factors and indicators could enhance clarity for the reader.

Compare with other scales: A comparative table summarizing differences between the UJS and other scales (e.g., MJS, IJS, SSMJRR) is recommended, including factor structure, number of items, and clinical or research purposes.

 

Theoretical and Conceptual Improvements

Develop the theoretical basis of “constructive jealousy”: Although the study briefly mentions that the scale distinguishes between peaceful and destructive jealousy, a more rigorous theoretical framework is needed.

Clarify the distinction between jealousy and envy: Although the article discusses the difference, some items (e.g., Q15–Q18) seem to reflect envy rather than jealousy, which could dilute the central construct.

Add detailed clinical and practical implications: How can therapists or educators use this scale in practice? What cutoff scores would indicate clinical risk?

 

 

Specifics observations on the Üsküdar Jealousy Scale (UJS):

Conceptual clarity of dimensions

• The four proposed dimensions—Relationship-Damaging Jealousy, Destructive Jealousy, Hostile Jealousy, and Controlled Jealousy—are relevant and reflect important psychological nuances. However, the label "Controlled Jealousy" may be ambiguous, as it includes items (e.g., the desire to be noticed or trusted) that may reflect narcissistic needs more than truly adaptive jealousy. It is recommended to review or redefine this category theoretically.

 

2. Item wording

• Some items are lengthy or contain multiple ideas, such as Q18 ("I often experience the feeling of being unloved, and I even want to know the dreams of the person I love"), which may be hard to interpret consistently or contain double-barreled phrasing.
• The scale does not include reverse-coded items, which increases the risk of acquiescence bias or automatic responding. At least one reverse-coded item per subscale is recommended.
• Several items under “Hostile Jealousy” (e.g., Q15, Q16, Q18) express intentions to harm or feel satisfaction from others’ suffering. While this reflects hostility, it overlaps conceptually with envy or social resentment rather than strictly romantic jealousy.

 

3. Construct coverage

• The scale effectively covers the emotional, cognitive, and behavioral components of jealousy, such as monitoring, suspicion, anger, and obsessive thoughts.
• However, it lacks specific coverage of indirect or passive-aggressive behaviors, such as using social media to provoke reactions (e.g., liking others' posts to incite jealousy).
• Despite emphasizing the role of social media in jealousy, the scale includes no items explicitly addressing digital behaviors (e.g., phone-checking, surveillance on Instagram), which may limit its ecological validity.

 

4. Response structure

• The scale uses a 5-point Likert format, which is appropriate. However, it is not clear whether respondents should refer to current, past, or general behavior. This ambiguity can affect response reliability.
• As stated, no reverse-scored items are included, which is a methodological limitation in self-report scales.

 

5. Scoring and interpretation

• The scale provides cut-off ranges for each dimension, which is a strength. However, it does not provide clinical thresholds, normative values by gender or age, or percentile ranks, which would improve interpretability in applied settings.

 

6. Practical applications

• The UJS appears useful as a tool for emotional screening or psychoeducational purposes, but its clinical applicability should be tested in clinical populations (e.g., individuals with anxiety, obsessive relational intrusions, or attachment disorders).
• A shortened or adapted version for use in schools, couple therapy, or digital platforms could be valuable, given the current scale’s 25-item length.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editorial and Formal Improvements

Revise English language usage: There are some grammatically imprecise or repetitive sentences. A language review by a native English speaker is recommended.

Expand the limitations section: Although gender imbalance is mentioned, it would be helpful to explicitly list all limitations (sample type, cross-sectional design, self-report nature, etc.).

Propose future research directions: Beyond validating the scale, how can it be used to study topics like digital jealousy, partner violence, workplace jealousy, or cultural differences?

Author Response

I attached the document. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting and super relevant to our social-digital world!

Author Response

Thanks for your all comment and efforts! Accordingly, no revision recommendations appear to be necessary.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate the authors' efforts in improving their work; a significant improvement is evident. Based on their responses, I have two recommendations:
1. Regarding Psychometric Improvements, understanding that the Turkish case is important for those writing the work, it nevertheless invites them to think beyond their own boundaries, as a scientific product is intended to be replicated or analyzed, at the very least.
2. To clarify the study on digital societies, we invite you to include the following work: Ultramediations in contexts of digital illiteracy in Ecuador
An approach to disinformation and misinformation. Its original language is Spanish, but it is easily translated and will contribute to your theoretical basis regarding digital societies and social relations.

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

I appreciate the authors' efforts in improving their work; a significant improvement is evident. Based on their responses, I have two recommendations:
1. Regarding Psychometric Improvements, understanding that the Turkish case is important for those writing the work, it nevertheless invites them to think beyond their own boundaries, as a scientific product is intended to be replicated or analyzed, at the very least.
2. To clarify the study on digital societies, we invite you to include the following work: Ultramediations in contexts of digital illiteracy in Ecuador
An approach to disinformation and misinformation. Its original language is Spanish, but it is easily translated and will contribute to your theoretical basis regarding digital societies and social relations.

 

Response:

• Thank you for your comment about perspective. In our study, we developed a Psychometric scale. It means that it can be studied for another cultures for adaptation. All scale studies are developed on a specific sample, but subsequently different countries can adapt the same scale to their own samples. Our development of the scale on a Turkish sample is not a limitation but a natural situation. After publication, researchers can adapt it to their own cultures and interpret the results according to their cultures. We argue that jealousy is a global problem.

 

• After very strong revising work, we uploaded revised version and comments document on the system. According to Reviewer 3’ Round 2 review, we searched the article suggested to us, we decided it is not relavant directly to our study.

-  Our study is about developing a jealousy scale and involves statistical processes. Of course, we also examined the impact of social media, but since it is not directly related to misinformation or disinformation, we have saved the source you suggested for another study. We believe that not using the specified source in this study will not create a significant gap, and we also believe that it is not entirely relevant. Thank you, we will use this as a useful resource in the future.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf